The Case for Atheism

[frasierc]

If you are capable of responding to two posters at once I'd still be interested to my question my post, numbered 275 above.

Hi Whateverist - sorry for slow reply will try to reply later tonight. Got two small kids chasing around the house so mostly only have short spaces of spare time to respond.

[Whateverist]

If you are capable of responding to two posters at once I'd still be interested to my question my post, numbered 275 above.

Hi Whateverist - sorry for slow reply will try to reply later tonight. Got two small kids chasing around the house so mostly only have short spaces of spare time to respond.

Cool. First things first and cyber can't replace RL.

[frasierc]

Well the most pertinent question for a Christian doing science involves evolution. Is abiogenesis an open question for you as a scientist? After all if it turns out to be demonstrably true, you could still go on believing that God so fine tuned the universe at its inception that no further meddling was required. Or do you engage in apologetics to argue that only itsy bitsy evolution happens but none of the trans-species variety?

Thanks whateverist for the patience.

If I'm honest I'm not that familiar with the scientific literature on abiogenesis. It's an interesting question - but I would need to do some further thinking and reading to be able to comment on the data.

I try not to get too involved in the discussions of creation vs evolution - which is probably a bit of a cop out. I'm more confident of the evidence for 'itsy bitsy' evolution - which I think is unquestionable. But I'm undecided whether the data's sufficient for the 'trans-species' variety - although of course I'm aware that puts me in a bit of a minority opinion.

---

The whole point is not to "presume naturalism". You are presenting the case for non-naturalism; the onus is on you to demonstrate the evidence for even supposing the actuality of such a thing.

I don't think the null hypothesis analogy is that persuasive. The way some use this argument I think effectively presumes naturalism - but from your earlier post I think you may have a more nuanced position.

But still I'm more of a Bayesian in that I don't think anyone really interprets evidence neutrally. For most aspects of knowledge about the world whether we hold naturalist or theist prior beliefs we still come to the same conclusions (e.g. gravity, whether to look when crossing the road etc).

But when it comes to interpreting the evidence for the existence of God our prior beliefs can have huge implications on the conclusions we draw about the data (or indeed what data we accept to be valid). So I think its more rational and transparent to factor these in and how they impact on our interpretation of the evidence.

---

Frasier, we presume as little as possible... Some, even less.

However, like Esq has already told you, thus far, the track record for a naturalistic explanation for whatever effect we observe has been far greater than the one for supernatural explanations, which have landed zero hits.
Everything we know about the world around us has been acquired through naturalistic methods. Everything!
Given this track record, what are the odds that all conceived supernatural explanations have actually been invented by the human mind?

Hi pocaracas, as I've said previously I value the scientific method and it has led to amazing discoveries about our world. So I'm not in anyway trying to argue against scientific research.

But I want to make the distinction between using the scientific method for empirical research and the philosophical belief (naturalism) that the only things we can know have to be amenable to the scientific method.

The problem with this approach of course is that you can't do a scientific experiment to test naturalism. But if you can't test this assumption scientifically but claim this to be true - then you've refuted your assumption that knowledge can only be obtained through scientific means.

[Ryantology]

I try not to get too involved in the discussions of creation vs evolution - which is probably a bit of a cop out. I'm more confident of the evidence for 'itsy bitsy' evolution - which I think is unquestionable. But I'm undecided whether the data's sufficient for the 'trans-species' variety - although of course I'm aware that puts me in a bit of a minority opinion.

It's not hard, even for a non-scientist: the 'trans-species' variety of evolution is nothing more than a sufficient number of 'itsy bitsy' evolutionary changes to produce a life form that is sufficiently different from the original generation. And, that's not a determination you can really make, objectively. There is no universal criteria for what separates one species from another. I would suggest that the closest we have for sexual life forms is their ability to reproduce with existing members of the original species that have not undergone the same level of evolutionary change, but even that's not very sufficient.

That's why the macro/micro distinction is meaningless. It attempts to redefine what evolution actually is, and how it works, so that it is impossible to work, and then it is used as 'evidence' that evolution is false.

But I want to make the distinction between using the scientific method for empirical research and the philosophical belief (naturalism) that the only things we can know have to be amenable to the scientific method.

The problem with this approach of course is that you can't do a scientific experiment to test naturalism. But if you can't test this assumption scientifically but claim this to be true - then you've refuted your assumption that knowledge can only be obtained through scientific means.

We don't assert that naturalism is definitely the only way to know something. We state the fact that naturalism is the only reliable and objective way to know something that we know of. We'd all be open to alternatives, but none of them are ever testable and all of them have fatal flaws in regards to being poisoned by personal bias. If God is real, I shouldn't have to assume he's real before having any evidence of it. Any evidence I get through that method cannot be reliable because I have no way of knowing for sure that I can trust any evidence that exists only for myself, be it of God or of anything else. It should be objective and open to examination without any preconceptions of any kind. My evidence should be examined by others in precisely the same format as I have received it, and that's not possible. As such, I can't treat any of that as knowledge, and that's why this same general method has produced tens of thousands of gods and thousands of variations for many of those gods, many of them contradictory and all of them conflicting.

[ManMachine]

Hello all,

About a month ago, I started a thread called The Case for Theism. In it I made a case based on 5 indisputable facts that I argued favor theism defined simply as the belief the Universe was intentionally caused by a Creator who intended for humans to exist as opposed to the atheist belief that there was no creator, the universe wasn't intentionally created or designed and subsequently human life wasn't intended to occur.

Since no atheists took it upon themselves to write this counter thread I've taken the liberty to start it. I'm throwing down the gauntlet are any atheists willing to make a case from indisputable facts (not speculative theories) that will convince me I am mistaken, that my belief in a Creator isn't reasonable and there are facts and data that provide a reasonable doubt to the existence of God? I'm giving atheists the benefit of the doubt that their disbelief in God is because of facts that call that hypothesis into question, not because they don't like the idea of God for personal reasons.

Thanks in advance.

1. When I moved into my new house there was a bucket on a shelf in my garage, it's still there, untouched.

2. We can both clearly see it and we can both agree it is a bucket. Neither of us have any facts or data about what it contains.

3. I am saying I have no idea what is in the bucket but I'm doing a number of things in an attempt to find out.

4. You, on the other hand, believe it is full of nails until someone provides you with 'facts and data' that it is not.

5. I put it to you that you are not being reasonable.

MM

[Esquilax]

It would be helpful to clarify what you mean by evidence. If your criterion for evidence is that it is possible to test in the lab whether God exists - then you're right there is no evidence of God's existence. But I think you would need to justify why you think only knowledge that can be obtained by using scientific methods is valid. How would you go about testing that assumption?

I'm not a scientist, but my criteria for evidence is a: a detectable effect that is preferably replicable, for which b: we can determine a cause. I don't think these are crazy strict criteria: without detectability there's nothing to test, and without a determination of a cause there's no reason to attribute this effect to any one thing in particular.

I don't require laboratory conditions for evidence, but I do require something, which is often a bridge too far for those willing to make supernatural claims.

I think here you're trying to use the analogy of naturalism as null hypothesis. So under this argument your claiming its rational and evidence based to hold to naturalism until there is sufficient evidence for theism that would require naturalism to be rejected.

It's a pretty simple position: don't consider supernatural explanations for things unless there's a reason to consider supernatural explanations for things. Is it that controversial a position that one should expect the mundane before they consider the exceptional?

Superficially this sounds neutral but there's a couple of limitations:
1) As scientific methods are not able to examine the existence of God - by definition you've fixed it that the null hypothesis (naturalism) will be accepted. Which is not much different from saying you presume naturalism without any evidence. Because any evidence that could be used to reject the null hypothesis has been ruled out in advance.

Whoa, whoa! Hold on there, you've made a leap that I don't accept. Scientific methods are not able to examine the existence of god? How did you determine that? There's so many problems with this, but I can boil it down to two main ones: first of all, if god has any effect on physical reality then those effects can be tested the same as any other, and the causes of those effects eventually determined. If he doesn't affect reality, then how is one supposed to detect him? Second of all, all those believers who claim personal experiences with god are themselves claiming to be god detectors, giving us an automatic sample size and something to test.

Now, you might be inclined to argue that when or if god does affect reality, he does so through means that are indistinguishable from natural ones, but that just demonstrates the thing I find most troublesome about this whole claim you're making. You're proposing a god that you cannot test, and who interacts with the only world we can observe in ways that are indistinguishable from if he were not to interact with it at all... and then you try to somehow make it our problem that your god is unfalsifiable. It's insane: the fact that you believe in a god that doesn't offer evidence for his existence doesn't mean we possess unfair presuppositions, it just means that we have no reason to believe your god exists. If you have some reason to believe, it shouldn't be hard to explain that, but so far all you've done is blindfire about presuppositions.

But to be clear, you have the burden of proof here. It's not up to us to disprove any claim you care to make, and we're not being unfair by not accepting your claims just because you make them. Stop trying to make an end run around just showing the things you think are true, and just present your evidence. If it's not sufficient... again, how is that our problem?

2) This idea of null hypothesis testing is actually quite an outdated view of how to interpret scientific evidence. The limitations of this general approach have been outlined in the literature for over 30 years.

Yes null hypothesis testing is still used in science but there is clearly a move away from this to a more helpful approach of focusing on estimation and precision. That is, what's the strength of the evidence that this is a true explanation and how precise can I be in drawing that conclusion. Where this is the case we need to do that for both naturalist and theist views of the world.

Would you agree that thus far naturalistic explanations have a far greater track record of proven results than supernatural ones? Furthermore, I'm happy to accept things based on your idea there, but that raises a much more important question: what evidence for the supernatural have we ever had?

There's also evidence to suggest the way we interpret data is more closer to Bayesian than Frequentist approaches. In the Bayesian approach, you begin with a prior belief before looking at the evidence (e.g. presuming naturalism or theism), you then update this belief with the data to come to a posterior belief.

I think this is more of a realistic explanation of how theists and atheists interpret data about the world. When examining evidence for the existence of God, if you presume only methods that could produce naturalist explanations are permissible, you're by default basing your conclusions on your prior beliefs.

And I've told you that I don't presume naturalistic methods are the only ones that work. But someone would need to propose another method and demonstrate that it's effective at doing what it purports to do before I'll start using it: I don't think "what is it?" and "does it work?" are an insanely high barrier of entry for new epistemological tools.

I even asked you above what evidence for the supernatural do we have: I'm not assuming anything, but I need something to go off of before I just start floating in a world of magic and wonder.

I think this is again a conflation of naturalism with empiricism. You're saying use of the scientific method has been really effective in explaining the world. I agree it has -but I disagree that requires me to be a naturalist. Also I disagree that this implies the only valid way to evaluate any question is by using scientific methods.

I didn't say it was the only way. But wouldn't you agree that if I have something with a proven track record of success on one hand, and an unproven thing on the other that might not even exist, that it would be smarter to start with the former? Again, I'm happy to consider supernatural explanations when I have reason to, I just find it bizarre that, instead of presenting reasons, you're just going on about how we're all biased against the reasons you haven't presented because we won't leap to the conclusion you want without those reasons. You're really putting the cart before the horse here, and in this case there might not even be a cart.

One of Stimbo's responses has already explained this. Gravity is observable, repeatable etc in the material world. Scientific methods are therefore the appropriate method of evaluating this concept. God is immaterial therefore requiring the use of methods designed to understand the natural world aren't appropriate for determining evidence for the existence of God.

If god is immaterial then how can you even detect it in the first place? And what methods would you propose we use to investigate it?

See that? For a person that "presumes naturalism" I sure as hell did just immediately start asking you investigative questions rather than just dismissing you out of hand, didn't I?

[Losty]

Reading through this thread like

[frasierc]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

I think the main point of disagreement between us remains that you still think I have the burden of proof. Your main argument I think is that naturalism is inherently more plausible and therefore the default rational worldview for humanity which ought only to be abandoned with strong evidence for the alternative.

But I don’t think you’ve really shown why that’s the case. To convince someone like me who doesn’t share that assumption you’d have to show why it’s more plausible.

We all have worldviews – it’s more or less impossible to live our lives without having some basic assumptions about the world we live in. Clearly if naturalism is true this has different implications to our lives than if theism is true. You’re clearly a thoughtful person, so it’s hard for me to understand why you would assume your worldview to be true until someone proves otherwise. Isn’t that the essence of your burden of proof argument?

I’ve argued from a Bayesian perspective, interpretation of evidence involves our prior beliefs about the world reconsidered and updated in the light of empirical evidence. Since we both hold prior beliefs isn’t the rational thing to do to examine what explanation of the world most plausibly fits the world? Rather than just assume one’s right until proved wrong by the other.

I guess we will probably have to agree to disagree on the matter of burden of proof. I've responded below to your comments:

I'm not a scientist, but my criteria for evidence is a: a detectable effect that is preferably replicable, for which b: we can determine a cause. I don't think these are crazy strict criteria: without detectability there's nothing to test, and without a determination of a cause there's no reason to attribute this effect to any one thing in particular.

I don't require laboratory conditions for evidence, but I do require something, which is often a bridge too far for those willing to make supernatural claims.

How would you determine the cause of a being who doesn't have a cause? Its by definition impossible.

It's a pretty simple position: don't consider supernatural explanations for things unless there's a reason to consider supernatural explanations for things. Is it that controversial a position that one should expect the mundane before they consider the exceptional?

Again this reflects your presupposition that the naturalist worldview is inherently more plausible than the theist one. Why is a naturalist view more mundane - most cultures in the world would consider it less plausible. I don't really see any evidence for this claim - sure as a believer in naturalism I understand why you would hold that view. But as a Christian I think its more plausible that the world can be explained using theist assumptions.
[/quote]

Whoa, whoa! Hold on there, you've made a leap that I don't accept. Scientific methods are not able to examine the existence of god? How did you determine that?

There's so many problems with this, but I can boil it down to two main ones: first of all, if god has any effect on physical reality then those effects can be tested the same as any other, and the causes of those effects eventually determined. If he doesn't affect reality, then how is one supposed to detect him?

Ok I can understand how that could be misinterpreted. My argument is that its not possible to design a study that could conclusively show theism or naturalism are the most valid explanations for the world. But I agree you can use a combination of scientific and philosophical methods to examine the extent that naturalist and theist assumptions reflect the world.

As a Christian my view is that not that we detect God - how could we if he's distinct from the material world we live in- its primarily that he makes himself known. One way that he does that is become human and reveal what God is like. He justifies these claims by dying and being raised from the dead - with 500 witnesses to confirm this.

Does this form of evidence fit within your admission criteria for evidence for the existence of God?

Secondarily, I would say something like the big bang combined with Kalam/Cosmological argument suggests the theist worldview is more plausible than naturalism. Sure there are counter arguments such as we'll find naturalistic explanations in the future - but on balance theism is the more plausible.

Could also look at the fine tuning argument which again combines evidence from physics and chemistry with philosophical argument. Once more I think this suggests naturalism is very unlikely. You could counter with a infinite worlds argument, but as its pretty much untestable and hence no empirical evidence for it, once more I'd still conclude naturalism is very unlikely.

There's lots of other combinations of empirical evidence and philosophical arguments (e.g. transcendental argument such as Bahnsen vs Stein debate, Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism) which also suggest theism is a more likely explanation of the universe.

I'm without doubt you could come back with responses to each of these arguments. None ultimately show naturalism to be false but on balance taking these arguments and empirical observations cumulatively I think its unlikely naturalism is a valid explanation of the universe. Do you disagree?

So when I look at the empirical evidence I think my theist assumptions better explain the world than naturalist assumptions.

Now, you might be inclined to argue that when or if god does affect reality, he does so through means that are indistinguishable from natural ones, but that just demonstrates the thing I find most troublesome about this whole claim you're making. You're proposing a god that you cannot test, and who interacts with the only world we can observe in ways that are indistinguishable from if he were not to interact with it at all... and then you try to somehow make it our problem that your god is unfalsifiable.

I think I'm actually arguing something quite similar to your justification for naturalism. I look at the world around me and the empirical evidence about the universe and theism makes more sense to me. I think fine tuning and the cosmological argument make it at least pretty unlikely that naturalism is true. If you take all the other philosophical argument for God's existence cumulatively - naturalism in my opinion is very unlikely.
Jesus becoming a man and providing evidence such as the resurrection to me is strong evidence that God exists.

It's insane: the fact that you believe in a god that doesn't offer evidence for his existence doesn't mean we possess unfair presuppositions, it just means that we have no reason to believe your god exists. If you have some reason to believe, it shouldn't be hard to explain that, but so far all you've done is blindfire about presuppositions.


But to be clear, you have the burden of proof here. It's not up to us to disprove any claim you care to make, and we're not being unfair by not accepting your claims just because you make them. Stop trying to make an end run around just showing the things you think are true, and just present your evidence. If it's not sufficient... again, how is that our problem?

We're both making claims. I'm claiming a theist foundation for the universe your claiming a naturalist one. Why from your perspective is it not insane to not provide evidence for your naturalist claims?

Would you agree that thus far naturalistic explanations have a far greater track record of proven results than supernatural ones? Furthermore, I'm happy to accept things based on your idea there, but that raises a much more important question: what evidence for the supernatural have we ever had?

No I wouldn't conceed that naturalism has a greater track record. As far as I can see the only evidence you've cited for naturalism is your belief there's no evidence for the existence of God. I would disagree, and in addition I think there's lots of reasons I've cited above why I think naturalism is unlikely to be true.

And I've told you that I don't presume naturalistic methods are the only ones that work. But someone would need to propose another method and demonstrate that it's effective at doing what it purports to do before I'll start using it: I don't think "what is it?" and "does it work?" are an insanely high barrier of entry for new epistemological tools.

Again this is still trying to switch the burden of proof. You'll continue to intrepret the world from a naturalist worldview until someone will show you different. But why do you hold that worldview in the first place? Isn't that a fair question?

I even asked you above what evidence for the supernatural do we have: I'm not assuming anything, but I need something to go off of before I just start floating in a world of magic and wonder.

I asked the same and haven't yet had a response other than the burden of proof argument which I don't think is valid.

I didn't say it was the only way. But wouldn't you agree that if I have something with a proven track record of success on one hand, and an unproven thing on the other that might not even exist, that it would be smarter to start with the former? Again, I'm happy to consider supernatural explanations when I have reason to, I just find it bizarre that, instead of presenting reasons, you're just going on about how we're all biased against the reasons you haven't presented because we won't leap to the conclusion you want without those reasons. You're really putting the cart before the horse here, and in this case there might not even be a cart.

Hold on a minute, where's your proven track record of success that naturalism is a valid way of using the universe. Isn't your stated basis for naturalism that its the default for humanity? That isn't particularly persuasive evidence in my opinion.

If god is immaterial then how can you even detect it in the first place? And what methods would you propose we use to investigate it?

See that? For a person that "presumes naturalism" I sure as hell did just immediately start asking you investigative questions rather than just dismissing you out of hand, didn't I?

That's a great question, how I as a Christian evaluate whether God exists is to examine the evidence he has provided about his existence.

Primarily from a Christian perspective we evaluate the evidence that God provides by revealing himself in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Secondarily you can do that by looking at the world - this includes a combination of empirical methods to study the universe, philosophy, and whether we like or not we interpret that evidence within our presuppositions. I think we differ in our evaluation of the evidence - I think from fine tuning, cosmological argument, transcendental argument, evolutionary argument against naturalism etc that data about the world is more consistent with my Christian worldview than a naturalist worldview.

[FatAndFaithless]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

I think the main point of disagreement between us remains that you still think I have the burden of proof. Your main argument I think is that naturalism is inherently more plausible and therefore the default rational worldview for humanity which ought only to be abandoned with strong evidence for the alternative.

A slight mischaracterization of the position. The simplest, easiest way to phrase the atheist position is just "theists have not met their burden of proof". There is no positive argument for atheism (SOME atheists might make the positive argument "god does not exist", but atheism as a concept is just lack of belief in theist claims).

You do have the burden of proof, as you are claiming something. We just don't think you've made your case. That's it.

[Cyberman]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

I think the main point of disagreement between us remains that you still think I have the burden of proof. Your main argument I think is that naturalism is inherently more plausible and therefore the default rational worldview for humanity which ought only to be abandoned with strong evidence for the alternative.

But I don’t think you’ve really shown why that’s the case. To convince someone like me who doesn’t share that assumption you’d have to show why it’s more plausible.

Here's the thing. We have the system in question - ie the Universe and reality - and every time we investigate phenomena in it, 'naturalistic' explanations yield the answer. Every time. Now you are proposing an added layer of mystery to the explanations, without establishing why you should be justified in doing so. That is why you have the burden of proof; you are the one trying to prove the claim. It's not up to us to prove you wrong - we have nothing to prove about your claims. Your claims - your evidence.

Look at it this way. I have a box beside me on the floor. You look inside and it seems empty, apart from the usual air molecules and sundry quantum stuff. Now, I tell you that there is some invisible, intangible animal sitting in it and looking at you. Am I justified to make that claim? Moreover, are you required to prove the animal isn't there? What's the simplest plausible explanation?